The survey is focused on Pharma, Biotech and Medical Device companies and their eMarketing to healthcare professionals. The study seeks to get a high level view of overall resource allocation, dimensions of spending as well as adoption attitudes.

The objective of this survey is to generate a baseline understanding of Pharmaceutical Manufacturer and Agency perceptions and attitudes towards eMarketing to physicians and other healthcare professionals within the Canadian Pharmaceutical industry. Individuals with an interest in this industry are encouraged to participate. Full results will be available at the Eye for Pharma Conference – eMarketing Canada November 1st and 2nd in Toronto – and will be posted online at www.essentialresearch.ca.

Results will be reported in aggregate for analysis purposes. These results will be based on healthcare industry sector (e.g. Pharmaceutical manufacturer or agency). Given this, no one individual or company can or will be identified as an outcome of the analysis.

As a thank you for participating in this survey, Essential Research will be having a draw for five $25 gift cards from Starbucks . It is your choice to opt-in or out of this draw. The survey takes no longer than 10 minutes.

The survey will be active until approximately the 3rd week of October.

Next week, I will be posting a blog series on Canadian healthcare social networks; 1 network reviewed per day! These are online communities where Canadian patients (and sometimes patients from other countries as well), share healthcare-related, and sometimes very personal information with one another.

As such, I was interested in learning more about how Canadian patients who connect with one another on online communities trust the information that they are receiving from one another. My immediate thought was to connect with the Edelman group.

If you have ever talked with somebody who either had been diagnosed with a similar disease or was taking a similar treatment as you, did you trust the information that you were given by that person? Chances are pretty good that you would have trusted the information given by that person, but not as much as in previous years.

The 2008, 2009 and 2010 Edelman Trust Barometerreports confirm this. Trust in a “person like yourself” has decreased from 2008 to 2009 (as have most information sources listed in the report), and dropped again in 2010. From the global 2010 Edelman report, 44% of respondents aged between 25-64 years said they would find the information from a person like them to be either ‘very credible’ or ‘extremely credible’ (down from 47% in 2009, and 58% in 2008). That’s a huge drop over the past 3 years!

Edelman 2010 Trust Barometer

Interestingly, the “person like yourself” is the only group that actually decreased in trust from 2009 to 2010. All other information sources either increased in trust or remained the same. It makes you wonder what happened to make us lose so much trust in people similar to ourselves. Unfortunately, the Edelman report does not give an answer to this question. They do provide insight though, regarding the increase in trust in the other groups;

“In a volatile year, it seems that informed publics value guidance from credentialed experts over a “person like me,” which lost ground as a credible voice of information for a company (figure 8). This desire for substantial information points to why academics and experts, and financial or industry analysts are the most trusted spokespeople for a company.”

But do these global statistics reflect Canadian trust?

The Edelman reports provide global and some country data, but do not break down any Canadian data. The Edelman group in Toronto agreed to dig up the Canadian information for me. However, at the time of publishing this post, the 2010 Edelman Trust report had just been released a few days prior, and the Canadian data was not yet available. It should become available within the next 2 months, and the Edelman group in Toronto has promised to send me some Canadian statistics as soon as possible (yup, I`ll be posting that info for you as soon as I get it).

But in the meantime, the Edelman group in Toronto was kind enough to send me some Canadian statistics from the 2009 report;

In 2009, the global trust in a “person like yourself” was 47%, whereas the Canadian trust in a “person like yourself” was 49%. OK, so Canadians scored a bit higher, but not by much. It will be interesting to see what the 2010 report shows, particularly whether the Canadian score will have increased or decreased, or stayed the same over time.

Another point to keep in mind is that a “person like yourself” is not the same as a “patient like yourself”. The Edelman report does not specifically discuss trust in health issues from a “person like yourself”. Talking about sports gear with another sports fanatic is very different than talking about your cancer treatments with another patient. Medical information can be so technical, yet healthcare can be a very personal and emotional topic for patients. Who knows! Perhaps patients with newly diagnosed diseases or prescriptions might have greater, or perhaps much less trust in another “patient like yourself”.

Can we answer the question whether Canadian patients trust others like them? Not entirely, at least not from this report. I think we can infer from the 2009 data that there definitely would be some level of trust. But to what level would we trust other Canadian patients, and how would this compare with other information sources? Those questions remain unanswered, at least from this particular report.

Another study by Essential Research Inc., Essential Healthconsumer, which was implemented in 2008 and published in 2009, suggests that more than half (57%) of Canadian healthcare consumers have greater trust in Canadian sites, whereas 36% trust all (Canadian, American, International) sites equally. However, only 14% of Canadian healthcare consumers who found healthcare information online actually shared it with others online. So it appears that having a Canadian online community might enhance the trust of its members.

I have two theories as to why this might be, but they remain untested opinions, so take it with a grain of salt;

1) This could be a result of the difference in timing of the two studies. The Essential HealthConsumer data was gathered in November / December 2008, whereas the Social Technographics Profile tool includes 2009 data. Social media is evolving quickly, therefore the time difference in collecting the data for both studies could be the reason for the discrepancy as more and more people are becoming familiar and comfortable in using social media.

2) Moreover, similarly to the earlier argument that a ‘person like yourself’ is different than a ‘patient like yourself’, the Essential Research data is related to sharing of healthcare information online, whereas the Social Technographics Profile is related to general postings and comments made on social media. Healthcare is very personal and can be emotional, therefore one might expect to see fewer Canadians willing to share such sensitive information online with others. But that very same person might be quite comfortable in sharing information about the new pair of shoes that he or she just bought for a bargain.

And finally, the type of disease state involved might influence whether Canadian patients trust other patients like them enough to share information with them online. Although not Canadian-specific and not trust-specific, the North American Technographics Benchmark Survey of 2008 (Source: Forrester Inc. Research; blogs.forrester.com ─ April 22, 2009) suggests certain disease states that participate the most, and might benefit the most from online communities (see top right quadrant on chart below).

The upcoming Canadian healthcare social network blog series might provide some qualitative information about how much Canadian patients trust others like them. You will notice that the level of member activity on these online communities varies. As you review these various online communities next week, keep in mind the type of disease state involved, the age of the typical members, the various features that facilitate the online discussions, and the sophistication of the management of the networks (most of the networks to be featured are managed by non-profit medical organizations who are juggling funding and personnel with multiple organizational objectives). This might help us better understand why some medical online communities seem to be more effective than others. Hopefully the series will stimulate some thought and discussion, and maybe even motivate some strategic partnerships.

Let us know your thoughts on whether Canadian patients trust others like them by writing a comment.

————————————-

A big thank you to the Edelman group in Toronto for their speedy responses and feedback. I was truly amazed at their level of customer service. (Thanks to Scott Evans and Lisa Kimmel for all your help!)

As well, many thanks to Essential Research Inc. for giving me permission to share some of their insightful Canadian data. (Thanks to Don Lajoie for his ongoing support and passion in sharing information about Canadian and e-health.)